On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger via cfe-commits < cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 02:06:58PM -0700, Marshall Clow via cfe-commits > wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Dan Albert <danalb...@google.com> > wrote: > > > > > Yeah, those sound like exactly what we want. Helping people find UB is > > > good, but optimizing assuming we've fixed all of the UB isn't > something we > > > can do. > > > > > > > Dan -- that's the situation you're in today. > > GCC has done that kind of optimization for *years*. > > Only on platforms that use this markup. Which is exactly the point I am > raising. The gain by this optimisation is questionable at best and it > has created (or exposed, however you want to call it) non-trivial bugs > in the real world. There is a reason why there is a lot of push back > outside glibc for this markers. > > I don't think that this is true. My tests (from a previous message - run on a Mac, which does not use glibc) show that gcc recognizes this and optimizes based on that. -- Marshall
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
